Atherectomy: The Little Devices that Could

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
e-mail icon
Google icon

CVB040108As the incidence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) rises, endovascular interventions continue to gain wider acceptance. Yet, questions remain regarding which patients benefit most from atherectomy devices.

Complex disease state

PAD is the most common type of peripheral vascular disease, affecting about eight million Americans. By age 65, about 12 to 20 percent of the U.S. population has the disease, which causes a four- to five-times higher risk of heart attack or stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Traditional treatment such as surgical bypass is effective but invasive. As a result, the endovascular approach to treating PAD has gained increasing acceptance. Between 1996 and 2006, bypass surgery rates decreased 43 percent, while endovascular interventions increased 230 percent per 100,000 patients, and the rate of lower extremity amputation fell by 28 percent ( J Vas Surg 2009:50;(1)54-60).

Goodney et al also found that increased numbers in endovascular interventions per 100,000 patients was due to growth in peripheral angioplasty and percutaneous atherectomy. The researchers noted that while percutaneous atherectomy is a new and expensive procedure, its use has increased by more than 4,100 percent.

Based on the clinical literature, atherectomy is successful about 95 percent of the time, but plaque forms again in 20 to 30 percent of the patients, according to Rajesh M. Dave, MD, chair of endovascular medicine at Pinnacle Health Heart and Vascular Institute in Harrisburg, Pa.

Plaque formation in PAD is much more complex than in the coronaries, Dave says. In the lower extremities, plaque is more diffuse. “The femoral-popliteal arteries have a tremendous amount of plaque burden—substantially more so than with coronary artery disease, where the arteries are smaller and the amount is generally limited to the area of blockage. Coronary disease is not nearly as expansive as it is in the peripheral arteries,” Dave explains.

Current PAD treatments do not effectively prevent restenosis, which still remains the single most important predictor of how a patient does after an endovascular interventional procedure, he says. “However, similar to coronary artery disease, the outcome of peripheral interventions has the potential to significantly improve if lumen diameter is expanded and plaque burden reduced. This is where atherectomy is particularly useful.”

Market trends

Peripheral Vascular Key Segments:
2008 In 2008, stents represented 41 percent of peripheral vascular treatment. Overall, endovascular interventions in the last five years have increased more than threefold, while bypass surgery has decreased by 4 percent. Source: Frost & Sullivan
Peripheral Stents
PTA Balloon Catheter
Stent-Graft SFA
Surgical Grafts

The peripheral vascular market is growing, partly due to a huge underserved patient population, according to Venkat Rajan, industry manager for medical devices at Frost & Sullivan.

Specifically, Frost & Sullivan predicts the annual growth rate for atherectomy devices will be around 10 to 12 percent. The firm reported that peripheral stents gained 41 percent of the market share in 2008, with atherectomy devices gaining 13 percent—indicating room for growth, according to Rajan.

Overall, the 2009 market projection was valued at approximately $230 million, with ev3’s FoxHollow leading the way, followed by Spectranetics’ laser device and Boston Scientific’s rotational device. Rajan adds that newer, smaller companies have entered the atherectomy device field over the past year, including Pathway Medical and Cardiovascular Systems, broadening the field of choices.

In August 2009, for example, Pathway introduced a smaller 7 French atherectomy catheter for its Jetstream device, expanding the scope if its use. The Jetstream last year also received FDA clearance for thrombus removal.

Rajan notes that more clinicians are willing to undertake these interventional procedures, abandoning a “wait and watch” approach. In addition, the preference of the various specialists who perform vascular interventions will influence how and when the devices are used. The success of interventional treatment for peripheral vascular disease has specialists jostling for turf.

Vascular surgeons, who traditionally treated peripheral vascular disease, could potentially lose cases to interventional cardiologists. From 2005 to 2008, interventional cardiologists’ volume